User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Was hoping you could explain

what the (TW) means in your edit on my talk page. It shows up when I view the history of edits.-Dirtclustit (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I replied at Dirtclustit's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Block, please

More vandalism by the user you warned. Sorry for the weird link, I'm supposed to be on break. It seems I can't step away without another starship9000 sock declaring themselves to me or some vandal attacking my page. Thanks, GABHello! 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. GABHello! 12:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem,587 BC

Doug Weller,

I had attempted to edit this page and it was reversed. I don't really know what I'm doing here and was hoping to get your help and explanation.174.30.112.164 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Lawrence C. Valin

Sorry, but I don't know which of these edits[1] was yours. The last IP editor added what looks like gibberish, but you wouldn't be asking me about that. Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taqiya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taqiya. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And best wishes to you and yours, User:Johnbod. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes to you and yours also, User:Ealdgyth, but I think troll-free is too optimistic. Productive, that I think might happen. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To you and yours also, User:Bzuk. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus Cheer !

Wikiclaus greetings
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you get the happiest of Wikipedia cheer from Wikiclaus himself.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better. Wikiclaus encourages we all choose to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer in wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirit from Wikiclaus !
Ouch, that looks painful, but the message is reciprocated, User:MichaelQSchmidt. Doug Weller talk 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Link

Hope you don't mind. Debouch (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Mark Miller and to you and yours also. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User talk:Davey2010, the same to you and yours. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Major changes of an user

Ferakp (talk · contribs) made major changes on the article of Genetic history of the Turkish people. The article is about ethnic Turks and that's the reason why commentators mentioned about "assimilation" and compared them other Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Please do something about this POV. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and move protected the article. But that means I can't get involved with the content. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about ethnic Turks, read the sources. They all mention that their studies are related to Turkish population, not the ethnic Turks. I mentioned that in talk page and talked about it in help chatroom of Wikipedia. Content is same except there was a lot of false information, links and picture that violated copyrights. Please, explain why you are against my changes. Ferakp (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Doug, can you intervene the issue? The user constantly push his pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.128.126 (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Ii dont know enough here to intervene. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Doug

Hope you had a great Christmas! Quick question...obviously i am new to this. If there is a page, I think you know the one, that has no real references (though I did attempt to add some) and is clearly biased (though I tried to kind of balance it) can I create a new page with updated photos and a more neutral article with references that actually allows the reader to make up their own mind on the subject like it should be done? If so, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistory2 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I can copy the content to your userspace

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Khentkaus IV about it. I can copy the content to your userspace if you like. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot please do. R.azz.miligi (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #190

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Walter Russell article

We have completely revised the Walter Russell article that stood for 9 years. It needs to be reviewed, and the old article generated some pretty hateful comments on the Talk page that needs to be deleted. Also the Chazhardy Talk page. Can you do these things? Chazhardy (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Season's Greetings  !!!!
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! And some drinks! Hafspajen (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

please do no review books you have never read

it makes you look like a fool. The Raymond capt book you never read, then there was the atlantis by castledon. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Douglas_Weller#Pseudo-skepticJonathanJoshy (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice fellow, this editor. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Amazing what people will say. I'm being attacked at that link and with the same words at Talk:Atlantis with the claim that ""What he is not arguing is that either Minoan Crete or Cyladic Thera was Atlantis. He is suggesting that instead Plato drew his story of Atlantis from proto-historical elements about both civilizations." This is completely false, Castleden actually makes the Cretan-Atlantis equation throughout his book and argues Atlantis is a traditional story, not a story Plato himself invented (inspired by Crete, or "drew his story" from Cretan elements)."
But Castleden p. 7 "The thesis of this book is that this story is not one piece of identifiable proto-history but several, and that Plato drew them together because he wanted to weave them into a parable that commented on the state of the world in his own times." p. 181 "The hypothesis revived repeatedly in the twentieth century - that Minoan Crete was Atlantis - has proved inadequate to the case and has been rightly been rejected." Doug Weller talk 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion

This source:

  • Smedley, Edward (1836). The History of France, from the final partition of the Empire of Charlemagne to the Peace of Cambray

is used quite liberally throughout the Philip II of France article. Should it be considered a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear definitely not. He wasn't a historian and he isn't used as a source in any reliable sources I can find. Take it to RSN if you have any problems (although it's quiet right now, wish I hadn't taken something there). Doug Weller talk 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I might start replacing the Smedley sources with reliable sources, when I get the chance. If I run into any issues, I will take it to RSN. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
A good start might be: Hallam, Elizabeth M.; Everard, Judith (2001). Capetian France 987–1328 (Second ed.). New York: Longman. ISBN 0-582-40428-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). At least it'd be a good starting point. I'm not conversant enough with the available sources to say what a good biography of Phillip Augustus would be. Hallam and Everard recommend the Baldwin work Government of Philip Augustus and a biography by J. Bradbury Philip Augustus, King of France 1180-1223 published in 1998. They also mention a couple of French sources for his reign, but my French is non-existent so I'll let someone else copy those over here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that Moses' joker

Though I am in his/her debt for reminding me to just a drop a note your way, Doug, to wish you, and yours, the very best for the incoming New Year. Have a good one. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani and the same to you and yours. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to wish you

...a very happy New Year in advance, Doug. Take care, and have a great one. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016
peace bell

Thanks for your support in 2015, - ring the peace bell often! - Look for hidden music by Bach, Sibelius and Verdi! Love the latter especially, great to begin the new year with Verdi's wisdom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Hello Doug Weller:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Doug!

Doug, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

WorldCreaterFighter

Thanks for disposing of 125.24.72.6. Just before 125.24.72.6 became active, a suspicious new user Dan Capoccia restored[2] WorldCreaterFighter's[3] edits at Ainu people. Could be another sock. Krakkos (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a freeman.

I used to identify myself as a witch (which)... simply to state that I look everywhere for answers. Not anymore since even that is misrepresented now with falsewitness (some people decided to set up a heirarchy system to desolve the original term.

"Adversarial Wiseman" is true to date which conditionally is only the case until a counter meaning has been attempted to linearise my meaning. I'm dynamic and not static. I move. I'm like the moon, sometimes you can see me (identify) sometimes not due to what is around me. Am I free? Sometimes, less than others since when you're wiser you restrain yourself from acting foolish or childish.

If everyone was like me then there would be no reason to push terms on each other... I'm the solution. (Perhaps fear of the unknown prevents this?)

As it stands for freeman, like I said, if you can't reasonably rebute their arguments (calling them insane)... I think they may something... failure to address their arguments puts them in the "pending" slot and are innocent until proven guilty.

Their adversaries... (People whom work in law per-say)... if they demand that freemen should debunk all arguments made against the premises of freemen against the law... then the vise-versa should be applied morally (as of natural law)... In other words, it's down to people who work in law to rebute all arguments freemen make... however, if law-workers move the goal-post then the freemen are at an equal still. Who looks to be in the wrong? (without asserting freeman is in the right since right and wrong are not being decided by nature here) Probably the people working in Law since they're not being naturally moral as they are the firt to change the rules causing freemen trouble.

Psychology perhaps suggests that many law-workers do not wish for their views to be challenged with regards their behaviour. Freemen compare them to a cult... I can see the resemblence, that's just my analyse though purporting them to scientology. If a cult-like movement have a big say in the media (in writing articles against freemen) where freemen don't... there's no reason for me to fabricate against this on wikipedia, it's self-evident and nothing would be achieved but I think it's right to add where possible that will give some representation if it follows the rules (people already have their opinion on these so it's no bother to me, Wikipedia has a most known reputation for false information, which has drifted to censoreship and libel, that's just the case so there is no gain).

People are going to judge you no matter what you may suggest to be... so this topic has been pretty useless. Hopefully, with regards to your prejudgements made against me (which is synonymous with "prejudice"... look at the words) and that I have stated on terms of being "guilty until proven innocent"... you'll accept that based on me stating that I have no interest in breaking the rules you'll give me some space. Slander is to avoid true topic of debate. If you want a real debate, I can gladly have one but I insist that you obide logical fallicies (rather they be arstotle based... I know of 1 logical fallacy on here that isn't really one but a clever sophisticate way to dismiss anothers argument if it precepts a relation to etymology <truest meaning as there are no misinterpretations or straw-manning>... it was made in 1994 I believe so sums up the possibility of error), room for human error, and lastly to not dismiss the principle that "natural categories" posit first before any details (natural or unnatural).

But if we're having an argument and say, you're a nihilist (someone who rejects the nature of value or analogies), there isn't much point in any discussion. Debunked in 2 steps...

Nihilist Claim; "Nothing is true = true" ->

(but if there is no truth then how can that be true?) ->

Therefore; "Nothing is true ≠ true".

Naturalist Claim; "Comparitablity is true = true" ->

(See nihilist argument, and this argument... a comparison is currently being made between the two as 1 example.)

Comparitablity = True.

Latestly however; counter to freeman arguments... I do not necessarily believe common law is the law of the land (this doesn't mean I do not condone crimes such as rape, murder or torture as you conditionally might if it was passed in statute (which I am unsure as you haven't stated a position on the matter)... Chapter III of the bill of rights (UK) only specifies that charters, grants and pardons must not be to no effect (<provided that this is the case is what it formally says>, providence also means "under protection by god", this is likely connected to the first commandment that you're breaking the firt commandment by changing the constitution)... these were all mostly written by kings and lords... So I just interpret from the coronation oath as a "verbal grant" that is above all else... that if you take action you have to be moral (mostly from 10 commandments) or have no authority at all. - If we have to find right and wrong... leave it to philosophy and history (for arguments.) The reason why that lawyer was annoyed at me was because I pretty much suggested that he wasted his time reading black's dictionary... some people don't react well to bad news and if everyone manned up admitting they don't fully know the law... including that lawyer... he for instance would be a qualfied lawyer since he'd have first hand experience of fraud.

I think that's about it. Eventually, freemen will be heard, there will be arguments between governments and freemen... and above will be the final result... I am sure of this and 95% of the time I am right with these predictions. Just wait till it blows over lol.

Anonymous 573462i (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that I ever used the word insane. I've got nothing to say about the rest. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Insane is my speculation as of a judge giving freemen negative psychological evaluations on the freeman page. Fair enough but you say nothing yet act, certainly this leaves me unsure as I can feel somewhat demanded to explain my actions on here yet you're not too willing to do so yourself (such as in the instance of abstaining of perhaps reversing my ban (or extention of it), whereby I was using my personal equipment on an open-source website (There are too many lawyers governing the fmol page to assure an authoritive postition against freemen rather than a more professial historical format as other pages are doing, see "Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" then the top articles in google and you will find that most headlines are aggressive towards catholicism in some manner yet no format as such on the wiki page is made (compare this to fmol and this page rejects the rule altogether). It doesn't seem to set an example from my pov to be too vague despite in principle it assures your personal safety if you do have the advantage of banning, and removing individuals from their talk pages etc from an equitable imperative pov. If you read how I actually formatted the page it was similar to Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home method. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Doug, a cupcake for you for fighting vandalism :-) Poepkop (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:143.176.216.29

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:143.176.216.29. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Infiboxes, again

Regarding this comment: It is not correct to say that images is not allowed in ethnic group infoboxes. It is image galleries of (presumably) famous persons that has been discussed. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy. Corrected it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem! Happy New WP year! --T*U (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • s son at all, but later editors may have amended the story to emphasize Nathan's other statement) that "the sword shall never depart from your house".<ref name=Wright/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for my recent revert. For some reasons I was confused and thought you had restored the capitalisation in the heading. Afterwriting (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Editor Being Uncivil To Other Editors

Doug, there an editor, who is being uncivil to another editor at Talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I left a civility warning at User talk:Hobbe Yonge, but am uncertain what else to do. Paul H. (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stevie Boi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevie Boi. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #191

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Frances Cress Welsing

Hi. I stand by all my comments about Welsing but I am not going to edit war. I must admit I did not realize the talk page comment to which I replied was a year old. I never edit that article and the comment in question was the last one on the talk page. It was dated early January so the 2015 escaped my attention (see [4]). Yours, Quis separabit? 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Kensington Runestone

A new editor continues to insert claims into Kensington Runestone which you and I both removed. I've tried to get the user to use talk pages, but that has not been successful. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What is Realiable?

Who are you to invade and determine on your own what is reliable or not? My PDF is certainly reliable or the MN Historical Society would not have accepted it. You are a threat to my American 1st Amendment rights here on Wiki, and my personal opinion is that you should be kicked off, permanently. I've already been warned about you and your U. K. hidebound approach to the KRS, and I think your close-mindedness is deplorable.

Please see our policies about what counts as reliable sources WP:RS. Selfpublished sources that have not been subject to academic peer review are not considered reliable. And for controversial topics only secondary sources are considered reliable evidence of the scientific standing and academic acceptance of particular views. Your 1st amendment rights do not apply to wikipedia, which is a private website - and especially not to the articles within the wikipedia which are governed by the wikipedia content policies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
UK hidebound approach? Now I wonder where this new editor gets 'UK' from. Who's warning him and doesn't have a clue? Doug Weller talk 02:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

2013 TX68

Any thoughts on including it as the latest misappellation? Finding reliable sources is always a pain, especially with David Morrison retired. But it does seem to be making rounds on Before It's News. Serendipodous 14:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ous I'm not keen at all, certainly not on the basis of Before It's News. Maybe it'll hit mainstream media. If not, too trivial. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the information and tips. Much appreciated. Jp16103 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Levofloxacin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Levofloxacin. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Participation request for dispute on Bat Ye'or lead

Hi, you have previously commented on the lead of Bat Ye'or. There's now a two-editor dispute surrounding it and your participation would be appreciated. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

107.72.97.155 on Nefertiti

Hi, could you have a look at the edit-war conducted by IP-editor 107.72.97.155 going on in the Nefertiti article about her origin? ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cush Someone should have given the IP a 3RR warning. As the page is protected it's ok unless they create an account. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Euphiletos

Authorship of Luke–Acts, user has violated WP:3RR/edit warring and is removing source without attempt to resolve/discuss. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, sorry to bother you again, I'm requesting the article to be protected for admin only edits...It seems the edit disputes are going on still. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
User:JudeccaXIII Apologies for not dealing with this but I see the article is protected now. Any more problems let me know and I'll try to respond faster. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Ararat again

I don't know if you've followed the conversation at Talk:Akhenaten, but based on the IP editor's latest post (1) and having compared an old message from Ararat arev on my talk page (2), I've realized that the IP editor is Ararat. These are the IP addresses he's used in that conversation: 166.170.45.225, 166.171.123.47, 107.72.96.120, 107.72.96.46, 166.176.59.165, 166.176.59.230, and 107.72.99.42. A. Parrot (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethnocracy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethnocracy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #192

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Previously blocked for harassment"

Yeah. "Harassment". The "harassment" was pointing out that an editor on the Dan Bilzerian article [redact 3rd attempt to out editor - DW]. Some weird admin claimed it was 'harassment' to point that out, because he needed a pretext reason to issue a ban for feeling 'sassed'. If you're reduced to irrelevant tangents, so be it but it doesn't change the fact that you're 100% wrong on the Solutrean Hypothesis article, regardless of who between us has the more elevated user status. I'll be re-reverting. Feel free to seek mediation. I think at this point the article needs it. LoverOfArt (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeating the outing you were blocked for twice wasn't a good idea. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bender235.
Message added 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Does www.catholic.org/ appear to be a reliable source to you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends what for. It's probably reliable for the feast day and the fact the person is venerated in the Catholic Church. Even then, there are better sources. As far as biographical details? I'd prefer other sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
St. Agnes just repeats the Golden Legend story. Not very reliable at all, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Question Regarding My Entry

I published an entry about Ayo Kimathi. I provided (2) paragraphs with direct quotes from the book he wrote stating his opinions and beliefs. Why did you tag my entry and say that it didn't have resource references? I quoted directly from the book and quoted the pages he made these statements on.

I am new at this, so I may have made some errors. But I clearly used direct links to statements made in major media and I specifically sited quotes from his book. What better references are you looking for? And could you be more specific because the paragraphs that you prevented from being added had a number of quotes.

Or is it that you flagged the page before I quoted directly from the books and so the quotes weren't saved?

I need assistance in understanding exactly what I need to do to correct this situation. Again, I am new and may be missing something.

I also need assistance in figuring out how to create the categories so that it's not just me writing Early History, but becomes an actual Wikipedia standard heading.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide Kalydosos (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Kalydosos it looks like your attempt wasn't correct and was fixed by Jim1138, I suggest you ask him. You need to red WP:CITE and use inline citations. You also need to read, now, WP:BLP. There is a lot of material in there that desperately needs sources meeting WP:RS, eg " Kimathi became greatly influenced by Cathy Hughes as a Black entrepreneur and Dick Gregory as a Black information resource." I don't see how you can even source that as a statement of fact. At the moment there is too much detail and it reads like a fan page. Note that your edit to Frances Welsing actually changed sourced text, which if you think about it is a bad idea. Our articles are meant to be written based on what sources say about the subject, not our own knowledge. Read WP:VERIFYH. After you read those I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse for help. That's a good place for new editors.
Please don't get upset if people start editing and making major changes to the article. No one has rights over an article, not even its creator. As I said, it needs a lot of work. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Query

Hi Doug, I have a question about something you wrote at AE: "[W]e've always said that if an article is basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban." I'm wondering whether a word is missing (e.g. "if an article is [not] basically about the subject of the topic ban." SarahSV (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Fixed it. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks. SarahSV (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Vvven

So, you arent answer to me in my talk page, if you will not, i will make the change then--Vvven (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw now the talk page. thanks that at least you put there. waiting that some that know something related at this, can give the specific sites, or probe if are fakes, althought by the hidden, in a talk page, will be very difficult that this happens, but thanks again--Vvven (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk at Genesis creation narrative

Doug, I don't know if you've seen this, but there is some talk going on at: [5] which might interest you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom search for my name there. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, okay, sorry. There is so much noise there, your contributions slipped my notice. I'm concerned about follow-on implications from that discussion, which might motivate some to make changes to the content of the article (which is about the "narrative myth"). But I'm not a prophet, so maybe I should wait and see. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #193

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 17:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Moon calendar etc

Hello Doug, not sure if you noticed the edits of this user. Maybe it's all right but all that pushing of a single article (in all of his edits) sounds quite odd to me. What do you think? Khruner (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's different articles, but there may be a COI, I've posted to his talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Stricken phrase

I inserted an angle-bracket to complete a strikeout-closing tag in a comment of yours at WT:ACN, because the entire thread beyond that point was displaying in the struck-out style. Please check that I haven‘t misconstrued your intention.—Odysseus1479 07:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Category: Pseudoarchaeology

Hello Doug. As an occasional wiki-editor, I have made some comments in response to your remarks on the Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology page. Would you care to review them and respond. Cheers, Peter B. (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David Irving". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 February 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Book of Mormon IP editor

Hi Doug,

The IP 74.231.191.88 has also edited as 75.65.155.86. This IP hit the same articles on the same dates. The content was different but also appears to have been copied verbatim from LDS.org. These edits were at Book of Mormon.

Thanks! -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has now replaced their talk page with the same COPYVIO content. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Ferret IP now globally blocked for spamming. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for follow up! :) -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good morning Doug. This diff appears to be a return of the same behavior under an IPv6, direct copying of LDS.org into Book of Mormon. Could you please delete and maybe also semiprot? If there is a better venue I should approach, please let me know. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ferret. Done. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sleeper account

This account looks like a sockpuppet. Registered on 10 Jul 2015, inactive until 20 Jan 2016. Then did 8 similar edits on his user page (see his/her contributions) to become an autoconfirmed account (26 Jan 2016) and he/she can edit a protected article [8]. --Zyma (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Zyma quite possibly but there's no way to tell whose at the moment. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Zyma very sorry, somehow didn't get around to this, tomorrow now I hope. If you have any details you don't want to post, email me. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
[[User:|Zyma]] I just can't find the evidence to be sure about this, sorry. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Zyma Sorry, that ping couldn't work. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I may submit a SPI case in the future. Thanks for your attention. Cheers. --Zyma (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


why do you support defend and promote hearsay assumptions and opinions that are biased uninformed and falsely based with regards to free men on the land? Do you have facts that discredit my first hand experiences and evidence? Do you commonly defend hearsay unsubstantiated opinion and biased reporting? I am [redacted personally identifiable information] and can prove all of my facts that your opinions offered in that article are not all truth facts and reality and are mostly damage control slander hearsay and indeed easily proven biased opinion174.3.33.47 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone Needs to Keep an Eye on the Lake Missoula and Missoula Flood Articles

Someone needs to keep an eye the Lake Missoula article. User talk:87.146.174.232 is making unsourced changes to it as he or she has done to the Missoula Flood article. He or she seems intent on changing articles, without providing reliable sources, to state that there has been only one Missoula Flood as recently claimed by Graham Hancock and his colleague Randal Carlson. Paul H. (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Curse of Oak Island" page

Howdy! I don't know if this belongs here or not, but here goes. Recently, a number of my edits (episode summaries) have been deleted from said page, for alleged copyright violation. I had restored said edits since they are NOT copyright violation, but my own summary of episodes I watched. Following this, I received two different notices about said edits: one claimed my edits to be "disruptive editing" for restoring edits that contained alleged copyright violations, the second claimed that my edits contained original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Although I hardly consider writing an episode synopsis "original research," I can see now how it could be construed that way.

The point I absolutely need to have come across is that I had received no proper notification or explanation about the unsuitability of my edits until after I had RESTORED them. I understand the monumentous task that it must be to maintain an encyclopedia edited by the general public, but clear communication about the grounds for reverting edits would prevent misunderstanding between editors and their motives and generally increase the quality of the encyclopedia.

I have since found episode summaries from the show's official website: I have copied them over with a link to the original source. Please have a gander and let me know if this is permissible or not. Real tlhingan (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Real_tlhIngan

Apologies

I apologize for my behavior on the SPLC page. I was in a bit of a bad mood at the time and did not mean to offend. I am sorry for my actions. Gdeblois19 13:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For the love of God please do something about this issue.

Russell Wilson page turned into a revert/edit war fiasco. Nezi1111 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in popular culture

Not sure why this is the case: "I've reverted you as your edits appear to be promotional." Using Theodore Ziolkowski's Gilgamesh Among Us: Modern Encounters With the Ancient Epic (2011) I am looking to improve the entry and provide relevant links where they are not currently given. I am not trying to be "promotional."

Ronanhead (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ronanhead, one of those links was selling a musical track, 2 were links mentioning the same author. I didn't see any trace of Ziolkowski's book. However, now that you explain it makes more sense, and I think that the English poet Jenny Lewis is probably notable enough by our guidelines to have her own article. Why not put her name back with your source?[9] Read WP:CITE to see how to do that. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Doug Weller, considering your recent warning, I thought I'd let you know I've requested another block of this account [10], which seems to have continued in pretty much the same vein. It's possible that more reversions are necessary, but I removed what seemed to be the most obvious commentary. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #195

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

you deleted my modification on Jihad Makdissi page and i did provide an Edit summary as requested . i was just trying to update the information , u had a lot of wrong info "rumours" and i used a URL for an interview he gave yesterday ( a lengthy one) to update the info on him. in addition to a recent interview on Arabiya ( it shows his political affiliation , job, political tendency.... everything i provided was verifiable

!!!!

I'll reply on this editor's talk page, he deleted almost everything critical without noting it in the edit summary, url didn't work, trivia added, eg Master's thesis title. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tintern Abbey

Hallo, Doug Weller, I have recently added sections to the Tintern Abbey article and have had them targeted by Editor Hchc2009, who I believe is taking the OR and Verifiability guidelines too far. I wonder whether you could contact administrators whose speciality these are to comment on the article's talk page and on Hchc2009's, where discussion has commenced. I suspect I may be being victimised, but don't want to approach arbitration if I truly am falling short. Thanks, Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mzilikazi1939 - arbitration would be a long long way off. And I'm afraid Admin's have no special content powers, but if I have time I'll comment. There's the WP:NORN notice board for original research, and the WP:RSN one for sources. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

04.11.2015

What 'uncivil' comment exactly are you referring to?Zacksfenton (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This one. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 19:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Requested move

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Westfield Derby about moving articles to "Intu" X and I'm only notifying you as you participated in a previous move,
BTW sorry if you got a ping earlier - Something went wrong so figured I'd just post this to everyone instead, Fun times! ,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


About Heritability of IQ

Hi, I submitted a request about semi-protection for the Heritability of IQ article today at about 18:00. It appears that the same IP editor has returned with an account, and is again incorrectly citing publications, and deleting information which more experienced editors of the article have not deemed to require deletion. Would you be so kind as to look into this matter? Or at the least, would you be able to recommend to me what steps I should take to get this issue resolved correctly? Thank you, and please forgive my inappropriate use of your talk page.

Also, would it be possible to assign Victor Chmara with some ability to limit edits; since he seems to be the most neutral and the largest contributor to the article, and will likely be the least biased. If that is possible, and if he will accept it. ScholarBlue talk 21:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Also can I point out to you that Windkin has now reverted my edits 3 times. You should probably warn him of the 3 edit rule. ScholarBlue talk 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Off to bed. Doug Weller (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


ScholarBlue's disruptive edits were already discussed on the article's talk page last month. Also can I point out to you that ScholarBlue has now reverted my sourced contributions 3 times, as well as deleting my requests for sources for his own unsourced assertions. You should probably warn him of that 3 edit rule. Oh wait he was already aware of it. Funny that. Windkin talk 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windkin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your recent action David in DC (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk political correctness

Hello Doug, I don't know if you have been watching 'PC', (I would well understand it if you hadn't been). PAs, spurious RfCs, arguing in circles and general battleground and IDHT have reached epidemic proportions. this was a recent response to this fairly reasonable attempt at discussion. I appreciate you are partially involved, but is there any option open to us other than ANI? Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) … … …ps please ping if replying

Pincrete you can try WP:DRN. Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I explained:

He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides.

that it was pretty much just towards me as a person and that it heavily distorted events that took place. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Ottoman Bulgaria - POV

Hi Doug. Its been a long time! Something caught my eye. In the article Ottoman Bulgaria, the opening paragraph has the statement:

"The Ottoman rule was a period marked by oppression and misgovernment and represents a deviation of Bulgaria's development as a Christian European state".

I'm just wondering whether its slightly biased or whether its ok as it is? I've had a look at the sources cited and whilst they does suggest misgovernment (I'd suggest more neutral sources, but there you go), the phrase "marked by oppression" doesn't seem to fit into the tone of wikipedia. Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks GiggsIsLegend (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Not a very good sentence. This book looks like a good source for the article. Not sure about Konstantin Josef Jireček. I certainly wouldn't use Jacob Gould Schurman - he isn't a historian. And "deviation"? What's that mean? As for "marked by oppression", that needs attribution to at least one good source. Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes I've been busy with studies so its all bit all-over-the-place. & I've made a start with a detailed note as to why I've deleted some content. Hope you're well. Thanks again. Will be sure to talk soon. (P.s) I've added a header for the next post...Housekeeping and all that :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit War: David Irving article, injust threat to block

See, its not me who is edit warring. I made a correction, and commented in Talk. Then another editor reverted. I again invited to discuss in talk. And he reverted again. Now, third time I again discussed, but he again ignored. And commenting each revert he said I promote David Irving's own views, whereas my correction was related to quoting from his book, to quote correctly, i.e. restore what he DID say and editing out what he did not. When we retell what is said in the book, we must quote correctly. Irving said this (what I put there, this is my small edit, article is large and the edit is a minor one) and he says that this is promoting the views that should not be promoted. Why misquote. Is that collective journalism? I mean, the consensus of it, I mean we all don't support Hitler and many accused Irving in supporting that man, so what the consensus would be? Is it OK to misquote? No one could correct? Consensus people own this one piece of writing? I mean, this reads like say Golda Meir and perhaps some others, all of them 'Jews' by some remote control 'controls'... Hungary, a whole state, that is how it is in the text, and that is 'supposedly', Irving says so, a conspiracy. But Irving did not say in the book that is quoted, nothing of this. And due to that what he DID say are his 'views' (he a historian, must have some view on history) we misquote and attribute to his what he did NOT say. And to change that is an offence. And no debate.

Could you advise, how we do arbitrate this?

It seems to me that the warring party refuses to explain self in Talk, shutting mouth with wiki procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Change made with citation to "Noah's Ark" page on Wikipedia

Regarding the "Noah's Ark" page; I made a change which you have commented on where I explained my reasons for the edit namely a broad statement had been made with no citation and strongly suspect NPOV which did not give credit to the wide debate on the subject. This was rapidly removed without explanation. I made additional change (without removing any text) providing balance to a statement which I believe breached NOPV rules. I backed this up with citations and careful reference to other internal (Wikipedia pages) and one external via a link to a source in the public domain and freely available. I have then been accused of initiating an "edit war". I would be grateful if you could explain on what grounds I have broken Wikipedia laws? With kind thanks 81.158.48.173 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Edward

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Moorish Science Temple of America bias wikipedia scholarship

Greetings. Last night, as I sat and read this page, I immediately began to edit many NON-REFERENCED bits of information. I have tried to edit this page in the past and many others pertaining to the Moors (see the Almoravids thread to this same editor/overseer). I would post [citation needed] and would give reasons why a citation was needed. For instance, Noble Drew Ali NEVER referenced himself as Timothy Drew, he referenced himself as Noble Drew Ali. Not only did he and the membership reference him by this name, the public and the media also referenced him by this name. Proof can be shown in the following newspaper article along with MANY others and yet, this Wikipedia article constantly refers to him as "Timothy Drew" and "Drew." This was not the case when this page was first established. Someone was allowed to come onto this page and edit and now, no one can change it. I find that quite odd.

File:PROPHET VISITS GARVEY.jpg
Chicago Defender reporting on Noble Drew Ali's visit to Marcus Garvey

The use of the name is inconsistent in the article. In some portions he is referenced as Timothy Drew. In others, he is referenced as Drew, and yet still, he is referenced as Noble Drew Ali. There are things within the article that have absolutely NO merit and cannot be found in the organizations religious text or literature. I will list just a few of them here:

  • "...and in religious texts, adherents refer to themselves racially as "Asiatics"."

This can be found nowhere in the religious texts of the M.S.T of A. Please cite your citation.

  • "Traditionally, it was believed that Timothy Drew was born on January 8, 1886 in North Carolina, USA."

This is not guess work or belief, this is from the man himself and his birthday celebrations were reported in the Chicago Defender which can be evinced below:

File:Noble Drew Ali's birthday celebration reported.jpg
Drew Ali's birthday celebration

Poor scholastic methodology was used in this article. Let us continue...

  • "Drew reported that during his travels, he met with a high priest of Egyptian magic. In one version of Drew's biography, the leader saw him as a reincarnation of the founder, while in others, the priest considered Drew a reincarnation of Jesus, the Buddha, Muhammad and other religious prophets. According to the biography, the high priest trained Drew in mysticism and gave him a "lost section" of the Quran."

Who did "Drew" report this to? This can be found NOWHERE in the teachings, literature or oral sayings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali which can be read here

  • "This text came to be known as the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America (which is not to be confused with the Islamic Quran)."

This view was obviously inserted by one who holds OBJECTIVE VIEWS to the prophethood of Noble Drew Ali who stated in the M.S.T. of A's religious text that "The fallen sons and daughters of the Asiatic Nation of North America need to learn to love instead of hate; and to know their higher self and lower self. This is the uniting of the Holy Koran of Mecca, for teaching and instructing all Moorish Americans, etc." The full text can be read here.

In this, Noble Drew Ali claimed to UNITE the text as oppose to replace it as this wikipedia article suggests. What this also suggest is that Noble Drew Ali did not bring any Islamic teachings and this too is blatantly false.

  • "Drew took parts of his book from the Rosicrucian work, Unto Thee I Grant, and most of it from The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, published in 1908 by esoteric Ohio preacher Levi Dowling."

More poorly stated research with absolutely no citations to back it up. The Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America was compiled using these direct sources:

  1. Lost historical information about the true origins and identity of the Moorish Americans, being falsely called black people in the United States of America by the most Noble, Prophet, Drew Ali.
  2. 19 of the 182 chapters of The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ By Levi H. Dowling
  3. The Economy of Human Life, Complete in Two Parts, Translated from an INDIAN MANUSCRIPT written by an ANCIENT BRAHMIN. 1806 By Robert Dodsley, Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield, John Hill (first published by Dodsley in 1745) [This text was copied by the Rosicrucian order in 1925 so the Wikipedia article is wrong. A link to this text can be found here ]
  4. Elegant Extracts: Or, Useful and Entertaining Passages in Prose: Selected for the Improvement of Young Persons: Being similar in Design to ELEGANT EXTRACTS in POETRY. Published in London, 1790. Author unknown. A link to this text can be found here.

Again, this wiki article is poorly sourced and offensive to members of the organization.

  • "Drew claimed to have been anointed Noble Drew Ali, the Prophet."

Anointed by who? Citation needed and yet, my edit for a citation needed was removed by this editor. It seems completely bias and it appears as if this article is trying to shed a false light on the organization and its founder by letting anyone come and make non-sourced claims, and not taking into consideration other sources which counter the claims of the books cited in the article.

  • "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork."

This is an absolute, and blatant lie and obviously said by an opponent to the organization. No citation was given and yet, this was allowed to be posted on this cite by apparent opponents of the organization. This is false light and slander as Prophet Noble Drew Ali urged members not to eat any meat accept fish. Prophet Noble Drew Ali expressly FORBADE the drinking of alcohol. If such is not changed within this article, we will in fact begin the process of suing wikipedia for allowing these types of statements to stand unchallenged with absolutely no proofs to back them up.

"Drew believed that African Americans were all Moors who he claimed descended from the ancient Moabites (describing them as belonging to Northwest Africa as opposed to Moab as the name suggests)"

Prophet Noble Drew Ali's exact words were "The Moorish Americans are descendants of the ancient Moabites whom inhabited the Northwestern and Southwestern shores of Africa." (Act 6 of the organization's bylaws). He taught that the Moorish people, falsely called "black" people, TRAVELED FROM the ancient land of Canaan and INHABITED West Africa (Ch. 47 v. 6). You can read the full text here. The wording of this article makes it appear as if Noble Drew Ali made up this claim as if people have not migrated since the beginning of recorded history. Not only have peoples migrated, the places they settle, are usually named after the people themselves like the name Mauritania.

I can keep going and going with the blatant misinformation within this article. If these things are not changed, if you cannot find citations for slanderous statements like "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork.", we will be suing this platform for false light as this article makes those interested in our organization not want to join. You have 72 hours to bring your citations or we will commence with a lawsuit in the appropriate venue. Peace.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Zamzam Well

Hello Doug Weller, Thank you for guiding me. I really appreciate it. 'Zamzam well and potential health risks' description mentions the potential health risks of packaged Zamzam water rather than Zamzam water. It also points out the scientific research which denies the health risks of Zamzam water. So I think the title is misleading. The title should be something like 'Packaged Zamzam water and potential health risks' as the description talks about the potential health risks of packaged Zamzam water and about the scientific researches that disprove the potential health risks of Zamzam water. Thank You.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shathir Puthalath (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pre-Roman_Iron_Age#Move_to_Pre-Roman_Iron_Age_of_Northern_Europe

Hi Doug! Thoughts welcome there. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doug thanks for your previous feedback , i knew now why you removed my correction to the page of jihad makdissi . i did introduced the new adds to the page and i inserted the URL as i should and i left u a summary of the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimak2012 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


ANI notice

I suspect that you've probably already seen it DW but this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting the abuses of administrator Doug_Weller has been opened at ANI. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

how is my editing even remotely disruptive

Just because you are the admin, you can remove an NPOV tag, but I am a user, then my addition of an obviously reasonable NPOV Tag is "disruptive"? how has Wikipedia become a dictatorship of you admins? 160.39.203.39 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You think it's reasonable because you think the SPLC is bad, FEMA agents are censoring one of our articles (and adding a censorship tag was also clearly disruptive), etc. That sort of addition of tags is disruptive. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You are an editor, by the way, like me. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't buy in FEMA conspiracy theory. I do believe that SPLC is bad, at least given their dubious roles in the Black Lives Matter movement.
By the way, how does my political belief justify your decision that my edit was "disruptive"? If everyone is indeed born equal, and you, as a Wikipedia administrator, is not supposed to be "a bureaucrat" that reigns over us commoners, why is my addition of an NPOV tag disruptive, and why is your removal of an NPOV tag justified? And why are you threatening to block me?
Also, on the talk page there has been a good deal of controversy about the neutrality of this article. Granted, some of these people (including me) are opinionated and vocal, but it does not mean that our opinions should be totally discredited as fringe theory. (Your belief that I am a FEMA conspiracy theory follower is a prime example of the staggering amount of prejudice and ignorance in your mind). There are valid elements in Sovereign Citizen Movement, such as the support of personal privacy, something Wikipedia actively supports. The overall tone of this article is overwhelmingly negative and is just not balanced. Alonso McLaren (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If you are the IP, you think that FEMA employees are censoring the FEMA article. Ok, you don't think it's a conspiracy, fine, but the template is clearly not designed for the purpose you used it, nor did you use the talk page to add any evidence. Our articles are not meant to be balanced in the way you probably think of balance, read WP:NPOV carefully. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I am indeed the IP, as I forgot to login with this account at first. I do not think that it is FEMA that is censoring the article. I did not even mention FEMA once in my edits. But why you admins are censoring the articles? And how do you prove that this article has a "neutral point of view" from the sacred axioms of WP:NPOV? At least as I am seeing it, this article as it stands suffers from editorial bias. Then why cannot I add a NPOV tag on this article? Just because you can block me and I cannot block you? Alonso McLaren (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
So you say you edited as the IP and then you say you didn't mention FEMA yet this edit summary by the IP clearly mentions FEMA employees. Along with WP:NPA you should take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS at this point. MarnetteD|Talk 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Blocked after complaining about me at ANI where his editing via 2 IPs was made clear. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #196

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 09:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #196

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 09:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to David Irving / Irene Zisblatt

It is quite clear that although Wikipedia's intentions are to provide articles from a neutral perspective, you are there to police articles that do not fit your narrative. You are quite happy for people to read misleading information, perspectives from journalists and outright slanderers who flippantly name call people which only reinforces the view of a 'chosen' few.

Secondly, just because someone claims to have done something in their lifetime, this should not be presented as 'fact' as though they have done it. For them to have accomplished or endured something in life, there needs to be science to reinforce those claims. I could claim to have swum the Atlantic and have people on either shore verifying I have done so but without evidence to support this other than testimonies, they are just 'claims' that I have made and others that are willing to collude with me on the matter.

You obviously have quite a lot of spare time on your hands, or you are a salaried employee with their own agenda, or both. Nothing that I have done can be seen to be misleading, the sources that I have provided are trustworthy (whether you deem the actual individual to be trustworthy or not is a different question, what sources they are referring to are the sources in question and the ones that should be scrutinised). I find it amusing if not pathetic how you simply reverted back to the 'original' article without considering any of the edit as valid. If your intention was to shun the neutrality of individuals willing to make the odd contribution then you've succeeded.

User:888gmailNot that it matters, but I'm retired, so yes, lots of time to work on Wikipedia. You either haven't read WP:NPOV, don't understand the policy, or don't care. I didn't restore it completely to the original although I did remove some serious WP:BLP violations you added. If you want to argue that David Irving is a source meeting our criteria, go to WP:RSN. I've tagged the article as needing more sources. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh edit

I add factual information to the page with reference pages that back up the addition to clarify the informaton that was already there. It doesn't fall under the Vandelism criteria you listed. I ask you leave it as corrected since it is factual and correct. I did try to keep what I added brief and to the point. there is quit a few things I could add that would clairfy Yahweh verse El better, but I avoided that to keep from making major adjustments to this Wiki page. As you can tell I'm not good at spelling or punctuation. So I do invite a edit that helps make what I added paragraphed better. Thank you for considering my request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren316 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) @Loren316: On Wikipedia, it's not so much whether something is "factual" or not, what matters is that all material is verified by citing professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Your edit does not do that, which is why it's being reverted. No, the Bible generally isn't accepted because interpreting the Bible (or most any other primary source) is original research, which we don't use. Even the statement "the sky is blue" requires citations (indeed, our article on Sky has four references to cover that fact). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Loren316: It was also a change of meaning, not simply a clarification. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller So you are saying on Wikipedia facts and truth are shunned? so Wikipedia is a shame of a site full of false inaccurate information. just because there is a article, or book someone wrote doesn't mean they know the truth, it is full of opinions and second or rumored accounts, only facts can be found living the situation on your own. even people recounting history that they lived is full of holes. Well a person that shuns the bible can say the same thing, I get it. but how can you then say "We at Wikipedia rely on this book but not this one"? is it because you don't like the Bible so then somehow it makes it untrue? please by all mean explain your stance on this? I await you to be real with me not just dismiss what I wrote and quoted because you personally don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren316 (talk • contribs)

@Loren316: I am not Doug Weller, do not alter other people's posts, and actually read what is written while assuming good faith from other users. Wikipedia only summarizes reliable sources, because if "the truth" was ok, people will put all sorts of ideas on here and claim that they're the truth. We'd have conspiracy theorists, fundamentalists of all religions (including New Atheism), crackpots, corporate shills, and politicians all turning this site into an incoherent waste of space. That is why we require sources, and why we do not accept original research. It has nothing to do with the Bible, it could be the Quran, the Vedas, or the Moby Dick -- we do not use personal interpretation of primary sources, because that is one step away from just making something up. As a matter of fact, I'm a Christian, and I've written an essay explaining why these guidelines actually work quite well with Christianity.
If a fact is not verified, how do we know it's a fact? I'll admit that I believe that there are unverifiable truths, but their veracity can only be discovered through experience, not study. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Thompson The factor of the matter was I posted clarifications on already posted statements that were not very clear. I put a clarifying statement in. I added references of source to the information. unfortunately the source of my info (the Bible) was a inappropriate source per Doug Weller. So he dismissed what I wrote because he doesn't agree with the source. I am guessing Wikipedia doesn't feel things are fact unless they say so. I thought Wikipedia was a source of knowledge from difference sources. I can now only assume as that Doug Weller is the obvious managing editor, that Wikipedia is then the world and history according to Doug Weller. Kind of sad. If you truly are a Christian then you would then agree that the Bible is as a reliable source as any other verbal history book (since 99% of books of history all started out as verbal till someone finally wrote down what they learned) So then how can you back Mr. Weller in his belief that these other history books can be quoted as reliable but dismiss the bible as unreliable?Loren316 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Loren316: You put in a statement that changed the meaning of the sentence, based on your interpretation of a primary source. We do not use original research or personal interpretations of primary sources. If your personal interpretation (that's what it was) is accurate, there will be academic works that support it -- cite those instead.
Read this conversation again, you are missing out on at least half of what has been said and seem to be completely making up the rest out of anger. You are blaming Doug for things he never said, that only I said, and that you have repeatedly misunderstood despite explanation. Doug never mentioned the Bible here or at the Yahweh article. I know the first time you blundered through this conversation that it was a mistake, but since it has been pointed out to you, at this point I have to conclude you either are incapable of paying attention, or are refusing to hear out others (great example of humility that), or are lying about what Doug said out of vengeful temper tantrum. Pretending for a moment that we allowed personal interpretation of primary sources (it doesn't matter what they are, we do not), how could we rely on you to interpret an ancient primary source requiring specialized knowledge to adequately understand when you cannot even follow this clearly marked conversation in modern English?
If you look on this page and actually read what is said, the paragraph that starts off with On Wikipedia, it's not so much whether something is "factual" or not was me (not Doug), as can be seen by the signatures. Quit putting words into other people's mouths, and quit misrepresenting those words. I was the one who said that personal interpretations of the Bible (like you used) are inappropriate, but I said this based on our policies on using primary sources.
Doug does happen to be on ArbCom, which is partly why he's remaining more distant in this conversation than I am (that and he's nicer than I am). That doesn't make him the "managing editor" here, his authority in this matter is purely because his actions were completely in line with policy. That's all.
As has been explained on your talk page and here, we rely on mainstream academic sources. You seem to begin to realize that, so that remark about "I am guessing Wikipedia doesn't feel things are fact unless they say so" is nothing but petty whining. I agree that the Bible is reliable for truths that have to be experienced -- but that's not what this site is for. This site is for summarizing mainstream academic sources, not presenting your personal interpretations of the Bible. Do you want someone to come on here and make edits based on the Quran or the Vedas, claiming that they do not need any other source because they believe those to be true? I'm going to assume you do not, in which case you need to ask yourself why you should be allowed to behave in the same way. As for your claim about "99% of books of history," that's like claiming that 99% of chemistry is turning lead into gold, or 99% of physics is banging rocks together, or 99% of astronomy is sun worship, or 99% of geology assumes a flat earth -- horribly outdated and a sign that you are not qualified to make historical claims based on primary sources (even if we did allow that, which, again, we don't). The history books cited on this site are considered reliable because they are written by professional historians with the level of credentials (if a different type) that you'd require from someone who performs heart surgery or -- they know what they're doing. It's totally fine if they interpret the Bible, and many of them do in their books -- but we do not allow users to put their own interpretations on the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Race and Genetics

My edits were not original research. I merely read the actual sources cited and clarified their implications. The article as it was written was insinuating much stronger claims than the sources supported. 100.33.104.99 (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this on the talk page. You did two things. You removed a statement about a review of the literature - are you saying that statement wasn't in the sources? And you also added your own commentary: "However, self-identification relies on social factors, which vary strongly depending the social conditions of the time and place. This implies that the results of Paschou and Tang's studies with "essentially perfect" agreement between genetic markers and self-identification does not rule out the possibility that the genetic markers chosen are those that people are able to observe in social settings (e.g., genetic markers related to skin color, eye color, hair color and texture, etc.). Thus, the apparently perfect agreement may be due to the fact that the scientists are actually in effect relying on the same social factors to distinguish the races as the populations making self-identification. Therefore neither study supports a conclusion that races exist as distinct, consistent genetic groups independent of social factors. Only a study that found agreement between self-identification and genetic markers that are not readily observable in social settings could support such a conclusion." And that is what looks like original research, ie your own clarification/interpretation. That's something policy says editors should not do. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Is there a way to suppress notifications of specific changes on watched pages?

Specifically, notices of Books & Bytes, The Bugle, and so forth? Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC) PS: Oh, yeah...and The Signpost"...

User:Anmccaff, that would be really useful. I've heard talk of an upgraded watchlist but don't know if it's going to happen. Meanwhile we just have to put up with it. You can hide minor edits but a lot of those aren't at all minor, nor are the posts you mention. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

RS?

Hey Doug, how are you doing? Does this book pass the WP:RS test?

I believe it does, but I just wanted to check it up with you. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

University press but a textbook for the Higher School Certificate (New South Wales). And all she seems to have in the way of qualifications is a Bachelor's degree. So I'd say pretty dubious. Whatever you want to source there must be better sources. Despite being an academic press book it's not aimed at university students, which I'd say is generally the minimum. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sending another. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #197

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 22:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Book of Numbers

Doug, this looks like the beginning of an edit war at Book of Numbers: [11]. It looks like a repetition of edits made last August and September, and now the edit summaries are starting to look like shouting. I don't know if there is anything you can say to bring them to the talk page. Corinne (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Corinne sorry missed this. Seems ok now. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Failed arbcom request.

Sorry if I have messed up the request. What should I do now? Is it best to revert and start again? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin If you think you can. I have asked the clerks if one of them could fix it. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Should I wait to hear from them? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

You have done a lot for Wiki Archana Venur (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling Moorish Science Temple of America

Doug:

Thanks for your vigilance concerning the Moorish Science Temple of America. Certainly an article like this will tend to attract folks with a particular (and particularly strong) point of view. I don't get here a lot, and mostly it's to upload photos. I will review the article in the next several weeks in some depth, adding citations, etc.

Your work is very appreciated. Mr. Harman (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. There's a lot that could be done with plenty of sources. It would be good if you could work on its. I don't have time, although I did try to fix some of the errors in it. Doug Weller talk 22:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevets20

Hi - I've CU blocked Nevets20, Nevets4 and Nevets3. Thanks for your vigilance, but looking at your block log I'll say that for years I've found that being civil can get you a hell of a lot further than personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you blocked Nevets20 so thank you for following that up and thank you for the compliment. That addresses the first half of your comment. Now, would you care to explain the second half? What does my block log have to with a SPI report? And are you accusing me of personally attacking someone? - theWOLFchild 18:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
User: Thewolfchild No and no, no accusations, just some friendly advice offered in good faith. But serious advice meant to help keep you out of trouble. No threat, no accusations at all. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Then why bring it up? Do you peruse the block logs of every editor you interact with and "advise" them to "don't do it again"...? - theWOLFchild 19:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
AGF please. It was friendly advice. If you think it was bad advice I apologise. I Doug Weller talk 20:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. I'm not saying it was "bad" or "good", just unnecessary. - theWOLFchild 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #198

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Press TV comments

I am sorry if I have offended you in any way. May be you are a Jew and you think I was against you. Rest assured I AM NOT.

I am interested in FACTS only. Verifiable FACTS.

The rest is *details* and the copyright issue can be solved by providing the BBC original website (as I did), if you prefer; but please note that the video itself is not viewable/has been removed there (that is the only reason why I gave BOTH links).

The notability question is dependent on weather the issue is censored (or not). So yes it may be WP:UNDUE unless the issue itself is CENSORED by the same global media who gives us all the news information (and this needs to be addressed by the WP community once and for all may be).

So may be I will go to arbitration but for this separate issue INSTEAD. May I suggest you bring up this issue as well in your discussions?

Cheers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a legend that my great grandfather was a French Canadian Jewish lumberjack. It really doesn't matter to Wikipedia if its censored (although that would be an article if it were). What matters is whether its significant enough, judged by how many independent reliable sources discuss it. You don't go to arbitration over this (trust me, I'm an Arbitrator), but either WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN, What you shouldn't do is ignore whatever consensus there is on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
God bless. You say: "What matters is whether its significant enough, judged by how many independent reliable sources discuss it". This is circular reasoning and you must know better. Please read the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 February 2016
Howdy Doug & SSZ,
Doug rightly removed a YouTube link with this edit as a copyright violation, and he noted "that is not the BBC's official site". Since I know that the BBC does indeed officially publish many of its programs on YouTube, I quickly looked up the YouTube channel for BBC's "The Big Questions" program, and left a note on the Press TV talk page suggesting that IP:47 might use that one instead. It appears the new link I suggested is also not the official "The Big Questions" channel on YouTube, making it, too, a copyright problem. I see that new link has already been removed from our articles, but I'm going to delete it from my Talk page comment as well. My apologies to Doug for the confusion, and my apologies to User:SSZ for suggesting the second link without inspecting the origin more closely. I'm usually not that sloppy.
On related matters, SSZ, you really should be logged in when editing Wikipedia. Making edits both while logged in and while logged out causes confusion, and some might assume deception. And while I'm giving unsolicited advice, please refrain from expressing assumptions of a personal nature about your fellow editors. Additionally, it probably isn't prudent to be considering arbitration while presently engaged in a related disagreement with one of the active Arbitrators. Start with the noticeboards Doug mentioned, gather reliable sources on the matter and make your case there. I'll try to keep an eye on it, because I do so love controversial subject matter, but I don't yet have a comfortable grasp of the available reliable sources on the issue, which are needed to direct my editing. (On the specific matter of a "global news media conspiracy", that narrative might be too controversial and far-reaching even for me.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xenophrenic, 1. I felt in the same trap as you did by not verifying the channel :) 2. the question of WP:UNDUE in this context is really about censorship. That is when WP:IAR comes to play 3. 80% of all my edits on WP have been IP edits. Do a search and you will be happy if you find ANY deception on my behalf (Economy of Iran is the FIRST & ONLY country economy in the English WP to have reached GA status.) so far 4. The idea is twofold a. not be reverted on the basis of WHO I am/where I have been only b. instead, based on FACTS and verifiability (For your info, economy of Iran and many WP related articles have been built up by me flawlessly in past 10 years without major hitch, and economy of Iran was most controversial (as you may know) because of the International sanctions until recently). 5. What I report on WP is reliable (i.e. referenced to WP:RS). 6. I did NOT make any "assumption" about Doug Weiller. It was a question. 7. The arbitration, as said, would be for a more general question (call it a "federal question"), not regarding PRESSTV's article. 8. Respectfully you can decide to "put your head in the sand" as the expression says OR investigate point 2 above by starting reading those court documents, beginning with docs. 11 and 12 and going backwards. Peace out, User:SSZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: A judicial lawyer has filed a criminal complaint after reviewing them all (recently).

PSS: I usually *NEVER* speak about this on WP, yet look at the "date filed" column for doc 11 carefully. It says: "2014-08-06" which is BEFORE doc. 10's decision. So they had to make an "investigation" within the Court to find and file those registered documents (See doc. 12 for proof.) -- and this is a US district Court and I am a US citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi there, Just to let you know I have archived the discussion. I hope you don't mind and won't revert you or anybody else on this specific top. Cheers, 47.17.27.189 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Socialism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Socialism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

US 19 naming edits

Yeah, I wondered about that guy's edits also. Took a Google Maps Street View ride from the 19/26 split to Cane River watching the signs (still in the warm AZ climate until spring). Newest SV photos were taken on a glorious June 2013 day, hi-res, lots of fun. Was able to verify the signs were all US 19 up to the turn-off for US 19W, which is just before Cane River. From there on, US 19E.

Now I'm looking for some cites for the new contract for the work east of town, although that should probably go in the Yancey County page. The new contractor is doing a great job, moving fast.

Also have pent-up desire to put in the 2010 Census figures. Summary is in the inbox, but the Demographics section needs editing. Would like to compare the two Census', or is that OR? Shapwolf (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Shapwolf, the Google ride sounds like something I should. I'm not sure if I'll ever get back there, sigh. If you just post both censuses, no problem. Nor is simple math.
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Review of webhostblock

Doug, could you perhaps review the webhostblock on 88.190.64.0/24, or tell me if an editor can challenge a block or the removal of IPBE when he himself is not affected by it?
User:LouisAlain has been blocked for more than a week, see his talk page and Wikipedia:AN/I#User still blocked, and a discussion of the merits of the block seems impossible because of the privacy policy. A moot point imo, LouisAlain's statement that he was blocked until 11 feb 2019 left 5 possible IP ranges, only one of them was inside the larger range previously blocked by Elockid for which LouisAlain was granted IPBE; fr.wikiscan.org gave two IP addresses in that range, one of the edits by the ...31 address on the french wikipedia was signed "LouisAlain".
Last year, when LouisAlain changed his ISP and found his new IP address was blocked (User_talk:LouisAlain#Blocked.21), Elockid said he based the block on RIPE saying that the range was allocated to Dedibox. As Thibaut120094 pointed out at the time, Dedibox is no longer using those IPs, their website says so: "Les IP en 88.190.0.0/16 & 88.191.0.0/16 ne sont plus en fonctionnement".

The host name for that LouisAlain's IP is "ran75-5-88-....fbxo.proxad.net", indicating that it is a Freebox modem/router, no different from the more than a million other Freebox users; I've given examples of 8 other ramdomly picked IPs in the ranges that Free ASA uses: diff.
On the other hand, when you look at the host names in ranges that DO belong to Dedibox, you find a lot of different domain names with only one host (apart from poneytelecom.eu):

212.83.160.1: prestamohipotecario.host.managerapp.net
212.83.160.2: cloud1.swap-informatique.com
212.83.160.3: 212-83-160-3.rev.poneytelecom.eu
212.83.160.6: 212-83-160-6.rev.dedibox.fr
212.83.160.8: ftp.toutvendre.fr
212.83.160.10: e35.silima75.fr
212.83.160.11: main.rdpcore.com
212.83.128.1: e41.lestopdu-web.fr
212.83.128.2: cloud.lintek.co.uk
195.154.0.1: a9k1-lo10.dc1.poneytelecom.eu

RIPE still lists 88.190.64.0/24 (and all other 88.190.X.0/24 ranges it seems) as assigned to Dedibox, but that only means the maintainer (PROXAD-MNT) hasn't removed or updated these entries yet. Maybe not a priority because these changes happen within the Iliad group (and the tech-c, admin-c, abuse contact listed are proxad's). Proxad is the name of the network used by Iliad's subsidiaries; Iliad enterprises, Dedibox SAS, Online SAS (Dedibox and Online merged in 2012) are hosting companies, Free SAS, Alice ADSL, Iliad Free Wimax are ISPs.

Other users have commented as well, like Rexxs. Mike's answer states that "the information from multiple venues shows that it's a web host". I see nothing to suggest it's not a Freebox modem/router, and wonder if some of its features are mistaken for a web host server (it has a linux server built-in, digital TV, VoIP, RAS and serves as wifi hotspot for other Freebox users). Prevalence 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prevalence, I'm the wrong person for this technical question and I'm not sure why you've asked me. Forgive me for being slightly puzzled about that, but I see you aren't asking every Arb so it's probably not that. You seem pretty experienced for a new account, have I run across you as an IP editor? But I see you've asked at WP:AN and pinged MikeV. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I picked your name from the list of admins with checkuser rights, looked for someone who performed IP blocks and was recently active. I don't know what the best approach is to get other admins/checkusers to look into the issue, or who the right person to ask would be.
Never posted as IP, I did have a previous account, which I retired. Later decided to come back. No blocks or bans, never accused of edit warring (only reverted one edit that wasn't mine), never been templated.
It frustrates me that WP has no clear procedure for cases like this, at least not one I see. Mike says the user simply has to post via his own ISP, if that was true, why hasn't he edited for more than a week now? Nyttend reversed Mike's action in one case, people are discussing changes in IPBE policy, but the one user who is currently blocked because of it all is being ignored. The easiest would be to AGF and give back the IPBE right, at least until other checkusers agree that he is indeed posting via a webhost (which seems very unlikely if the IP address I found is correct). But no one seems prepared to do that either, or perhaps no one has thought about it. So what now? Prevalence 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Pinging the right person for a technical question this time: @Materialscientist: could you review the block or give your opinion about User:LouisAlain using a webhost (and not a freebox modem with host name ran75-5-88-190-64-31.fbxo.proxad.net)? Prevalence 02:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

El (deity)

I have started a discussion on the talk page of El (deity). Israell (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nefertari

Hello Doug, we have a casual WP:ARARAT on Nefertari. As you can see, his edits are a little fooler than usual: changing Nefertari into Nefertiti, adding ortographic errors, restoring deprecated persondata... Quite a development. I'm going to PM you later. Khruner (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done the request here. Khruner (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Calebjbaker and enWS

Hi Doug, I've deleted the two "documents" over on enWS as being outside our criteria for inclusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller. I have logged an ANI report regarding the behaviour of Calebjbaker.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Standard offer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Standard offer. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have time..

See Talk:Canada#Oldest Aboriginal Presence --Moxy (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Race

I know, that talk pages aren't forums. But it is related to the article. There is such discipline as human engineering that still do use race as a variable in anthropometric studies, such as CAESAR. Therefore the question arises: do all modern science consider race a "social construct"? Эйхер (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

CAESAR is a possible source, although it seems they use the phrase "ethnic groups" so I'm not sure (and how do they determine those). Anyway this is not what your edit said. Post something like this instead. Doug Weller talk
JSF CAESAR. See p.5 "Race weighting". Do not be surprised by "hispanic" race - on p.12 they explain that "hispanic" group is, indeed, a mix of racial types. Still you may look on the p.6 and see that people of different races have different body proportions. Hence the need to have certain racial composition of the sample when making anthropometrical survey. Failure to do so would make people upset (most likely from minority racial groups or from socially disadvantaged racial groups). In worst cases it would have people injuried or dead. See also, for example: Limiting disproportionate disaccommodation in design for human variability. So I'm a bit puzzled that people calling themselves "scientists" can think race to be a fiction. Эйхер (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As I suspected, there's no scientific definition of race in these reports. The US Bureau of Labor not surprisingly uses self-identification:"White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget guidelines, these terms are used to describe the race of people. Beginning in 2003, people in these categories are those who selected that race group only. Those who identify multiple race groups are categorized as people of Two or More Races. (Previously, people identified a group as their main race.) People who identified themselves as Asian are further classified as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, or Other Asian." As for South Africa "the South African Economically Active Population had a diverse population consisting of four primary races: African, Coloured, Indian and White." Whatever that means. Ergonomic design has to take into account human variability, sure. And Japanese males are on average taller than those from South Africa, Nigeria, the Cameroon. Of course a lot of this has to do with nutrition. Those figures would have been different 50 years ago. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
"And Japanese males are on average taller than those from South Africa, Nigeria, the Cameroon. Of course a lot of this has to do with nutrition." Of course stature varies to the great extent and depend much on nutrition. But body proportions are independent from nutrition. A black man would have (with very great probability) longer legs and shorter torso than a white man of the same stature. Эйхер (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

my mistake

I mistakenly reverted your recent edit on Baal and immediately self-reverted. Sorry. Editor2020, Talk 03:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

March 06 2015

Hellow sir please dont delete proper matter as you done at page Vaddi adding info is vast process but delete is very simple if you un satisfy with content add [citation needed] un necessarly dont delete contents of page vaddi as proper references were added WP MANIKHANTA WP MANIKHANTA 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:WP MANIKHANTA using your sockpuppet you added copyright material from an unreliable source. Copyright material must be deleted when found. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #199

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BLPs, Mental Illness, and WP:BLPCAT

The edits by Pol9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made me realize I don't know of any specific policies or guidelines that talk about mental illness in BLPs. I see WP:BLPCAT includes "suggest that any living person has a poor reputation" which could theoretically cover mental illness, I wonder what you'd think of a proposal to include mental illness to religious beliefs and sexual orientation as things that require self-identification in BLPCAT. My only thought is that some BLPs might have court diagnoses (e.g., a criminal with a mental illness) which might require a caveat. Curious what you and your talk page stalkers think before I head over to VP.

Messaging you in particular because you've dealt with the linked user and this topic before. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page stalker comment. I happened to check my bloated watchlist, and Doug's talk page was near the top, and your edit summary immediately caught my eye, EvergreenFir. A bit floored, to be honest, that's its never been fully addressed in BLPCAT before now. But I think your proposal is an ideal solution to what no doubt might be (or has been) an otherwise contentious issue. Self-identification should be the standard. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like it if I could stay out of this. All I did tonight was to revert a suspicious IP who did massive and selective deletions. The claims that I have written on Avril Lavigne's page are now sourced and that issue had been solved before. If you disagree with the source, it can be deleted (although one of the source is an interview with Lavigne herself). The one in Alba's page is also sourced from a foundation who seems legit, although I can't remember where the claim was originally from. If it is against your policies, you can delete it. Other than that, all I did was to revert a suspicious IP who massively deleted content. Don't rush vandalism conclusions on me, as a matter of respect. Thank you. Pol9 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

May I ask you Pol9, also not to rush vandalism conclusions against an IP, just because the IP removes unsourced / poorly sourced material with appropriate edit-commentaries and accordingly to our WP:BLP policy? That would be really kindly from you, Pol9. --212.95.7.95 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Could ask you the same. Your edits are obviously biased, by the way, and I was rightfully reverting you on most cases. Didn't verify them all. Pol9 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
You cannot fool us. --212.95.7.95 (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, no one accused you of vandalism, Pol9. Vandalism has a rather narrow (though sometimes subjective) definition on Wikipedia, and is considered an edit in bad faith. BLP concerns and violations are a completely different animal. We have to take it very seriously, so as not to perpetuate any falsehoods about a living person, and avoid slander. Biographical articles are held to a higher standard, and subject to more scrutiny as a result. In contrast to vandalism, I don't think anyone doubts that your efforts were made in good faith. Don't be discouraged. I'd only suggest that you read the WP:BLP policy carefully (and in full), so as to avoid any future issues, given that most of your recent edits involve biographical articles. Starting out here and learning the ropes can be tough. I would think that EvergreenFir only included your name in his proposal for the sake of transparency, and to invite you to join in the discussion, if you so wished. But I really can't speak for them.
Just to be clear, I'm not familiar with what the issue was specifically. Nor do I really have any desire to get involved. I was commenting solely on EvergreenFir's proposal, independent of whatever prompted it. It's a good idea.
As an aside, if you have any questions, you can get immediate help at #wikipedia-en-help connect. Just click the link, and you'll be connected to experienced helpers, some of whom are administrators. Honestly, it's how I learned to navigate policy, just asking questions and hanging out there. If you'd prefer to get help on-Wiki, and don't mind waiting for a response, you can also try the Teahouse.
And 212.95.7.95, chill. No reason to be bitey. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. --212.95.7.91 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I have read WP:BLP before, and it doesn't justify everything that IP (and I'll keep calling it suspicious as it changes in pretty much every edit, and the intent doesn't seem normal) has deleted while refering to it. Biased edits for sure. Not getting involved in this anymore. Pol9 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't spare you for your involvment. For example, in the article Ashley Olsen you undid an edit that has been made by User Only in death and which was requested by me in an open case on the BLP Noticeboard... You really should made yourself more familiar with the WP:BLP policy.
Also soon I'll have to make another edit-request regarding the good-classified semi-protected article Avril Lavigne, where you made this edit. This two-page scan of a woman-lifestyle-magazine hosted by an ADHD-clinic is not a reliable source! Also there is no reason for putting the Article Avril Lavigne into the Category: People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as you did. The ADHD-claim is sourced with an interview, in which Lavigne says "I walked around the streets by myself and I was in school. It was so weird because I’m super-ADD and I can’t sit still and it was hard and I was jet-lagged too for, like, a month." With "super-ADD" she makes a relation between her behaviour and ADD-symptoms, also there's just mentioning by passing, so this doesn't justifies the claims in the article about her medical status. Three years ago Dougweller spoke already with you regarding your edits in the article Avril Lavigne, now we are again here. --212.95.7.91 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir, it's an interesting idea, but I really don't think there is enough similarity between mental illness and self-identification concerning religious and sexual identity. I don't think you can source this, and speaking as someone who has dealt with the mentally ill both as part of my job (decades ago) and personally, I know that the mentally ill often aren't aware of their mental illness and flatly deny having a mental illness. As for self-identification as ADD (or even schizophrenic), there is still a difference. When someone says they are a Christian we can be pretty confident that we know what that means. If someone says they have have ADD, that just means that based on their understanding of what ADD is (which may be completely wrong), they've decided they have ADD (which may be wrong even if they understand what ADD is). I think we can use "poor reputation" to do with BLP issues. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Doug - That's the part I'm getting a bit hung up on but my concern is that category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers. Given the stigma around mental illness, I think categorizing BLPs by mental illness should only be done if the person says they have it. I'm wary of something like a professional diagnosis is made public (e.g., court diagnosis) as you might have experts disagreeing with each other. I'm going to look later to see how many examples I can find where people don't identify/claim a mental illness but have the category due to coverage by other sources. Anyway, I'd love to hear more folks opinion. My goal is to have something more concrete in the policy regarding mental illness. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I have no opinion regarding mental illness other than if you suggest a live subject of a biography is suffering from one, or is taking medication commonly used for mental issues, the sourcing had better be Reliable(tm). On Olsen it wasnt. I have no objections to including it if better sourcing is found. I will say my limited French may lead me to err on the side of caution with regards to Gala.fr, however from my inspection it appears to be a common celebrity gossip site - fine for uncontentious 'Celebrity X attended X awards' statements, not so fine for 'Celebrity X takes medicine X'. I pointed at the BLP noticeboard where this sort of issue is most commonly discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Although I will admit I may have fudged it a little as I also removed a small section on their past relationships. While not intrinsically a BLP issue (it would hardly qualify as contentious) a failed 6 month relationship with a relatively non-notable person sourced to the daily mail online falls foul of UNDUE for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: You might be interested in the wording used on WP:AUTISM#Lists, categories and templates:
"The explanation at WP:OCTrivial is worth noting: 'Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits.' For example, celebrities are usually notable for reasons other than being gamers. So while Stephen Wiltshire really is notable for being an autistic artist, people in occupations like dentistry or aviation are not.'"
I think the same reasoning could be applied with either WP:TRIVIALCAT or WP:NONDEFINING. Permstrump (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly which articles this question was in reference too, but I just created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, so I figured I should mention it here since it might be related to this discussion. (This is the first AFD I ever initiated, so I'm not sure if there's anything else I'm supposed to do?) Permstrump (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Permstrump]] - you don't need to do anything else, although I don't think it will succeed. All of this probably should be at BLPN rather than my talk page, of course.
A recent AFD ended in the decision to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders, so I was thinking that might be a precedent. Did you mean I should cut and paste this entire thread to the AFD or just that from this comment forward people should respond on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Permstrump (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Permstrump:I missed that AfD, interesting. Might work then. No, the thread should have been at BLPN, I wasn't suggesting and don't suggest any connection with the AfD. 19:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug, Permstrump, Only in death I post my thoughts on VPI at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#BLPCAT.2C_mental_illnesses.2C_and_learning_disabilities. Please feel free to comment there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll check it out. P.S. At first I thought you were being melodramatic, but then I realized "Only in death" is a username. It looks like it could be the beginning of the first sentence. I was thinking... "Gee, I've never commented on village pump before... I wonder if it's something that I'll dread as long as I'm living too." Permstrump (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The full quote would be "Only in death does our duty (to the emperor) end". I do sometimes feel I could have chosen a less fatalistic username... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New Era warrior

Hi, Dougweller. There's just been a new change of eras at Aesop's Fables which slipped in without you or I noticing. I've checked on his history and it seems deliberate and persistent, despite a warning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnsgreat) at the start of 2015. Could his account be suspended for a short while to reinforce the warning? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting article protection

For Tower of Babel as indefinite, constant removal of "myth" by IPs as the article is one of those "controversial" topics relating to Genesis/creationism. Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Help me

Sir please help me that i am new to wikipedia and i dont know copyrights use. I also dont know that maintaining two accounts is punishable I thank that my sockpuppet was blocked and i will use only one account. Please excuse that i am new to wikipedia. The content i added to Vaddi was true please help me to add more info to that page awaiting for your help Thank you WP MANIKHANTA 11:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporary suspension?

What may be a school account here received a final warning for vandalism at the end of February. The same behaviour is continuing and the account seems to be mostly used for that. Is it time to consider a temporary suspension? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939 thanks. Done. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller for your action on both the matters I raised. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request

This edit at David Barton (author), is a promo edit, and my main concern is that the edit summary, which contains contact information, should probably be squoshed like a bug. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:NatGertler Thanks for alerting me to this. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In relation to the above, please see the edits made by 173.67.167.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Warning: there is a lot more behind that editor than meets the eye; he appears to be "on a mission" and has been a bit of a Wikipedia time sink for years. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
{{pint|Xenophrenic}}And 173.67.167.77 (talk · contribs) and I guess 173.67.158.192 (talk · contribs) and 173.67.158.36 (talk · contribs) (you know how to find all the edits in a range? Just replace the last number(s) with an asterisk) but I really know nothing about the editor. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Heartland Institute

Re your protection of the article, perhaps you're not aware of this. There's in fact been surprisingly little activity in response to their call-to-arms. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Thanks. I think I knew about that unless it was a similar outfit. As you say, not a lot of response, meaning maybe they don't have many readers. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Arb decision page shortcuts

Asking since you're an arbcom member: Is it okay to create shortcuts on decision pages (like this, or should I ask a clerk to do it for me? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Obviously editors do it but best to ask a clerk. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on race by Mikemikev

Mikemikev's IP's are no longer South Korea, but from Wales. He moved back to Wales this month (he's Welsh). He's mentioned this elsewhere publically on a forum about , but I wont link to it as it might be against Wikipedia rules. But in this message he claims he's going to go back to vandalizing both Wikipedia and Rationalwiki on the race pages. There is no doubt the following IP from Wales is his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.149.182.25 ArmyMenRTS (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

ArmyMenRTS linking might be ok but you can email me the link. Thanks. Useful to know. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Favor

From one rumored descendant of lumberjacks to another, may I ask a favor? I'd like to keep this a secret. Can you help? (Short-term semi-prot might be prudent, too, but that's a judgement call still too early for me to make.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic done. Ah, the good old days. Greenwich Village, SDS, etc. Well, Greenwich Village at least, but by the time of the WU I was living in Brooklyn. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Protecting

Hi Doug, you have protected the article Mahidevran Gülbahar. But you should realize that the article is protected soon after an editor removed a paragraph. So you’re keeping the article as the last editor wishes to be (with reduced information) . This is not fair. If you have to protect the article why don’t you protect it as it was before the paragraph removed ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Admins always protect WP:The Wrong Version. I did it as soon as I learned about it. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
How do you know which version is wrong ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Nedim Ardoğa - did you read the link? It makes the point - using humor - that when a page is protected there's at least one editor that thinks it's the wrong version. As I said, I protected what I saw. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Doug, just for the record. In this case there are at least 2 editors who thinks it's the wrong version. Cheers.Worldandhistory (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Mahidevran Hatun‎

Hallo Doug, there is an ip which since a couple of weeks insists (despite several reverts) to add to this article (a real battleground, mainly because of the myriad of Turkish users who are watching the historical soaps on Turkish TV) an interview to an "alleged descendant" (!) of Mahidevran. The IP pretends that interviews are per se RS, and that the burden of demonstrating that they are not falls not upon him, but upon us (the poor other editors). Could you please have a look at the article? After two reverts and a couple of messages, I give up. ;-) Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm User:Worldandhistory. You have locked the page Mahidevran Hatun‎ on the above request without investigating "a real battleground", or so the request says. It seems you are taking unjust advantage of being the administrator; which itself is a violation of Administrators Policy. The interview is rather not cited as a reference, IN FACT, the interview is not cited AT ALL. None of the article's content has been changed as per the interview's content. Only the presence of that interview (it's existence) is mentioned in the article (at no point emphasizing that the information is correct) because there's no policy violation in that. Claims can be presented with the claimants. It's up to reader to choose which seems to be more reliable. This is perfectly admissible in WP. I hope as a wise administrator you will take a wise action or at least reverted the changes made by the later user. Worldandhistory (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Worldandhistory: I haven't violated anything but you of course can complain if you wish. I am not going to edit the article. You can request unprotection at WP:RPP . Doug Weller talk 19:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just noting I restored two sections below that appear to have been accidentally overwritten. When you use the top Edit menu to comment on a talk page, @Worldandhistory, please take care to insert your text (with indentation as appropriate) in its section so as not to replace any previous content. Otherwise your edit might get reverted as a seeming attempt to suppress or manipulate a discussion, or simply as a breach of talk-page etiquette.—Odysseus1479 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
HiOdysseus. Sorry but I did not understand. Can you please explain my mistake so that I wont repeat it. As far as I remember I did not delete anything so how it happened? Can you please also send me a link to my mistake? Again, I am new at Wiki so will take some time to understand posting techniques. Please help. And thank you noticing.Worldandhistory (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, @Worldandhistory, if you click “View history“ in the top menu of this page, a dozen or so lines down you will see an entry date-stamped 19:42, 12 March 2016 (that’s in UTC—depending on your Preference settings you may see it converted to a different timezone), including a dark-red “(-907)” that means your edit had the net effect of deleting 907 characters from the page. The diff showing the changes is here (you can also get to it from the History page by clicking “prev“ on the line in question, just to the left of the radio button); the text shown highlighted in orange on the left was replaced by that in blue on the right. I can only guess how it happened, except that it was probably some sort of slip of the fingers, or perhaps an unconscious habit acquired from replying to e-mails.—Odysseus1479 05:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Citing references[edit source]

I'm waiting for your answer! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Demanding much? No agf there. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't withhold your guidance about "references". I need your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwnirotide (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Doug Weller I mean your answer exactly about references, so I ask my questions here and wait for your answer: Would you please give me some references as counterexample? Did you read EVEN one of them? (e.g : The Cambridge History of Iran) ? or this one ? Do you know who is Pierre Briant ? In general, did you read only one book on history ? I become happy to hear yes ... These are nationalism thoughts? or your thoughts is Anti-Iranian sentiment?Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide:And one last time, I was only posting to ask you not to just link to Google Books but to provide proper citations including page numbers. I had and have no intention of discussing content. Doug Weller talk 06:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Just a simple question is that what does Achaemenid Iran mean? which is mentioned in several references such as:

[1][2][3][4] [5] [6][7] [8][9] [10]

Would you interpret Achaemenid Iran for me ? or essentially you don't believe these references and Iranologists?!Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-dynasty
  2. ^ http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733309.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199733309-e-024
  3. ^ https://archive.org/details/TheologyAndWorshipInElamAndAchaemenidIran
  4. ^ http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199550234.003.0003
  5. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=8cbZAAAAMAAJ&q=%22achaemenid+iran%22&dq=%22achaemenid+iran%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
  6. ^ WJ Vogelsang. The rise and organisation of the Achaemenid Empire: the eastern Iranian evidence. Vol. 3. Brill Academic Pub, 1992.
  7. ^ Dandamayev, M. A. "Media and Achaemenid Iran." History of Civilizations of Central Asia 2: 35-65.
  8. ^ Briant, Pierre. "Social and Legal Institutions in Achaemenid Iran." Civilizations of the AncientNear East. Edited by JM Sasson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons (1995): 517-28.
  9. ^ Stronach, David. "Early Achaemenid Iran: new considerations." (2000).
  10. ^ Garrison, M. A. "Visual Representation of the Divine and the Numinuous in Early Achaemenid Iran: Old Problems, New Directions." Iconography of Deities and Demons, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX (2009): 1-79.

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Multiple vandalizing of Dan Schnedier page

Hello, could you please look into removing the multiple users who are vandalizing the page of producer Dan Schneider (TV producer)?

Here is the list of edits and recent vandalism, a lot of them are changes to his name in the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Schneider_(TV_producer)&action=history

Here is the list of unregistered users making these changes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.199.139.169

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.20.171.230

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1.132.97.43

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.46.193.78

Please help with this if you can, thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, I hate to disappoint you but the problem seems under control. I have however added it to my watchlist and will protect if necessary. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Paul the Apostle" - Physical Appearance

Hi Doug,

I would like to add a new section to Wikipedia's "Paul the Apostle" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle) as shown below (references not listed):



11. Physical appearance

The New Testament offers little if any information about the physical appearance of Paul, but several descriptions can be found in apocryphal texts. In The Acts of Paul[194] he is described as “A man of small stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked” and in the Latin version of The Acts of Paul and Thecla it is added that he had a red, florid face.[195] In The History of the Contending of Saint Paul his countenance is actually described as “ruddy with the ruddiness of the skin of the pomegranate”[196] and The Acts of Saint Peter confirms that Paul had a bald and shining head, with red hair.[197]

As summarised by Barnes,[198] Chrysostom records that Paul’s stature was low, his body crooked and his head bald. Lucian, in his Philopatris, describes Paul as "corpore erat parvo (he was small), contracto (contracted), incurvo (crooked), tricubitali (of three cubits, or four feet six)", while Nicephorus claims that Paul was a little man, crooked, and almost bent like a bow, with a pale countenance, long and wrinkled, and a bald head.

Pseudo-Chrysostom echoes Lucian’s height of Paul, referring to him as “the man of three cubits”.[199] Paul himself admits to having been ‘abnormally born’, [200] perhaps suggesting some kind of deformity such as being crooked or hunch-backed, that tormented him.[201]

Would this be acceptable? No mention of Paul's physical appearance is made anywhere in the article and the new section contains only traceable (historic) accounts. I am also not an auto-confirmed user, so I would not be able to add it myself at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Saddeleur: you're just a couple of befits away from being confirmed. Looks ok but as I don't know the subject or the sources.... Of course you could ask on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks ok to me, without seeing the refs. He had an established appearance in Early Christian art, very possibly predating many of these writers. The article has nothing on that either. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I just wanted to check initially. Here are the references:

194. Barnstone, Willis. ‘The Acts of Paul’ in The Other Bible. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, p. 447.
195. Eisler, Robert. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1931, p. 448.
196. Budge, E.A. Wallis. ‘The History of the Contending of Saint Paul’ in The Contendings of the Twelve Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdomes and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists. Vol. 2. The English Translation. London: Henry Frowde, 1901, p. 531.
197. Ibid., ‘The Acts of Saint Peter,’ p. 501.
198. Barnes, Albert. Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on The New Testament. Vol. 6. II. Corinthians and Galatians. Glasgow, Edinburgh and London: Blackie & Son, 1844, p. 212.
199. The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/, s.v. ‘Paul, Saint.’
200. 1 Corinthians 15:8
201. 2 Corinthians 12:7

I am new to this, so how should I proceed? Can or should anyone else comment? How do I get past the "auto-confirmed user" requirement to add it to the WP article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added the topic to the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Occasionally, I've seen editors told not to use Wikipedia for promoting non-neutral, original research or undue weight, after which the editor places the POV content in other Wiki areas such as WikiSource or WikiQuote, generally with links to that material either from their Wikipedia user page (usually in regard to WikiSource) or articles (usually in regard to WikiQuote). Are there similar processes for dealing with those issues on those sites? They don't seem to have well estabalished policies or mechanisms for dealing with such issues. Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jeffro77:I posted to the Wikisource:Scriptorium over a Wikisource issue. For Wikiquote I'd suggest Wikiquote:Village_pump. If you have any other specific issues let me know. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Connor Machiavelli

Apologies if this seems gossipy, but I just took a closer look at this editor and their history. They seem to be an SPA with very strong right-wing views, given their name, the quote on their user page and their editing history. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having political views or being an SPA. I don't expect you to find any nefarious over-the-top POV pushing if you also look into them, either. I basically just wanted to voice my agreement with the concerns you expressed here and explain why I agree without doing it right there, where it's sort of a slap in Connor's face. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Yes, the userpage clinched it for me. But as I've said at ANI, I see a bit of a competence issue - a lack of understanding of what he is reading and an inability it seems to understand OR. As you say, not over the top, but with a naive or just uneducated view of politics. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's been my experience that the stronger the political views -left or right- the less informed those views are. Reality is just a mess, so better educated people tend to see the good their preferred side could do as well as the harm their opposing side could do in less grand and absolute terms.
I think the article seems to be in that just-right position where there seems to be a lot of synthesis and 'interpretation of sources' going on, but it's hard to combat because accurate information itself requires us to edge dangerously close to (and sometimes into) synthesis and interpretation. To give one example, take the difference between the far-right and the alt-right. I've been researching just that, and what I've come away with is that the only difference is that 'far-right' is a more pejorative term, generally used by the political left. So while I've gathered a crap-ton of good RS's, I can't use them without making the case that 'far-right' and 'alt-right' refer to the same groups*.
Honestly, I think the article needs to be cut down to a stub. Just throw out everything with controversial sourcing and wait for better sources.
*I have specific reasons for believing I won't be able to make this case, but I don't want to bore you with them unless you specifically ask.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think it might be time to ask an uninvolved admin to take a look at Connor's activities... He has 5 or 6 edit warring warnings, and a whole host of related warnings on his user page about this subject, just in the past few weeks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The proper place would be WP:AE, see the discretionary sanctions alerts on hist talk page. But I'm an Arb and it wouldn't really be proper for me to do that, so I've reported him to WP:ANEW. An uninvolved Admin could, without warning, place a topic ban on him (as an example) or that could be done at AE. Again it wouldn't be proper for me to ask an Admin to do this. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I see he picked up a 48 hour ban for EW, so let's see if that straightens him out some. If not, I suppose I'll get the ball rolling at AE. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_39&oldid=1090505526"